« Previous | Main | Next »

Why We Vote on Tuesday

Share

January 09, 2008 5:32 PM

ABC News' Lauren Effron Reports: Tuesday is typically a day regarded as part of the regular grind -- unless it's an Election year. Then it's one of the busiest and the most inconvenient days of the year.

With each passing term, Americans are forced to work their biggest civic duty -- casting their vote -- into their busy schedules, having to plan well in advance scheduling for babysitters, leaving work and fighting traffic to get the polls on time and making sure the polling place has their registration on file.

It's almost the same amount of effort put into a dinner date. So why is engaging in the democratic process such a chore? Well, blame the crops.

According to ABC affiliate KMGH 7 News out in Denver, Congress made the decision to have Election Day on "the Tuesday after the first Monday of November" back in 1845.

They cite www.WhyTuesday.org, who reports America's economy was mainly agricultural in those days and Tuesday was the most convenient day for farmers and field hands.

Going from your house to your polling station and back again in the mid-1800s could take three days, and Congress didn't want travel to interfere with religious observances on the weekend. So Monday, Thursday and Friday were out.

During that time, Wednesday was typically Market Day in this country, so we were left with Tuesday.

According to the 2000 Census, around 80 percent of Americans live in urban or suburb areas, and a 2003 Census study found the average American spends more than 100 hours -- or 4.7 days -- commuting to work each year. We may not need three days to go to our polling locations anymore, but our lives are busy.

The WhyTuesday.org Web site mentions that voter turnout has dropped to 50 percent or less since 1945, which begs many of us to ask the question -- doesn't Election Day need an upgrade?

January 9, 2008 in Tancredo, Tom, Thompson, Fred | Permalink | User Comments (18)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bill went after Obama with half truths. Obama merely came back with explaining his position and gave us the WHOLE QUOTE, which was chopped up by Bill. That hardly sounds as if Obama is attacking anyone. PLEASE.

Posted by: angie | Jan 9, 2008 6:04:42 PM

Obama can't take on Bill. He can pick on a woman,however he can't take on one of the Greatest President we had in the 20th century.. And now we are going to vote for another President Clinton. And she will be one of the Greatest Presidents in the 21st century.. No Doubt. NO MORE JAPPER JAWS WE NEED ACTION, WE NEED HILLARY... GREG

Posted by: greg | Jan 9, 2008 6:05:45 PM

Greg:

I agree with you.

I want ACTION TODAY, not promises about tomorrow.

Obama would be this generation's Carter. Big smile, big promies, and no action.

Posted by: PW | Jan 9, 2008 7:58:26 PM

It will take 2 Clinton's to even have a chance to repair George's mess ! Obama would only finish off America, or do you thing his ties and massive experience would help.

Posted by: drwfll | Jan 9, 2008 9:50:26 PM

Here is some good news forObama.
This is from the best in the business, Karl Rove, the singular best conservative republican strategist. Don't ask me why Karl Rove wants Obama to be the nominee. Please figure it out.

Karl Rove memo to Obama: How to win Iowa and beat Hillary. Why on earth would he do that? LOL. Rove morphing into a democratic supporter. hehehehe..

Posted by: VPNNathan | Jan 9, 2008 9:58:23 PM

Bill Clinton is a serial crook and Hillary is a congenital liar. Unfortunately they are very good politicians.

They sold us out to NAFTA and any one who would pay.

You may believe that the "iron my shirt" and tears incidents were random, un-staged events. You may also vote for a soulless power hungry American Evita.

Posted by: disambiguate | Jan 9, 2008 10:09:41 PM

Obama has Oprah, Hil has Jerry Springer oops Bill

Posted by: Anthony | Jan 9, 2008 10:56:14 PM

We need a typical Kennedy again, someone who understand and is of and from our generations. Someone who's tired of our same old politics. As young people and future young leaders, we need a role model, change and as well as a different path for changement.

Posted by: Nevardo Cayemitteq | Jan 10, 2008 2:18:17 AM

And among all of our candidates, that someone seems to be Obama, it's not only about his speech, but as well as his ideas. He's thinking the same way that our young people in America thinks. We need a new kind of poltics that would bring change, the world to us, to actually live and lead the free world. And that's Senator Barack and John Edwards.
Barack Obama President, and John Edwards Vice President.

Posted by: Nevardo Cayemitte | Jan 10, 2008 2:22:41 AM

The republicans are strongly salivating
at an Obama nomination.They have started
playing thesame dirty politics on mrs
Clinton that they played on senator John
Kerry,former Georgia senator Max Cleland
Cynthia Mackeny and a host of others.The
republicans and the media are so silent
when it comes to asking Obama his stands
on certain issues.Obama is too liberal
for the general election. Everybody know
that the voters of this country always
vote from the center.They know that the
only place that they can successfully
challenge Mrs Clinton is in the very
left of the democratic party in the
primaries.This worked for them in Iowa
but not in New Hampshire. I hope that all the hard working
middle class Americans see them for what they are up to.If Obama becomes the nominee,which I hope not,watch the
slaughter.Did anyone remember what was
done to John Macain a war hero in the
2000 prmaries,treated General Collin Power like no secretary of state when
he dissagreed of going to war immediately.Obama is not ready for this job.The last time I checked on the
classified section of employers looking
for new emplees,it always state "only
those with experience needed".The world
is very complex now,economy is very bad
health care needs reform. We do not need on the job training.This not a serious decision people.I care less about the people of Iowa,they never get
it right.As they say, the only time that part of the country is once in four years.Iowa does not represente
other states in this country.I think
we should this time give a woman a
chance,she has the experience,than Obama
DEMOCRATS DO NOT LET THEM TO WIN THIS
TIME.DO NOT FALL TO THEIR GAME.HILLARY,
YOU HAVE MY VOTE>

Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | Jan 10, 2008 7:59:29 AM

The Republicans are playing the old bait-and-switch when it comes to their intrest in Obama. Republicans wan't Democrats to think that Senator Obama is the one they fear in the General Election. The reality is they want Obama because they know they can tare him apart on experience. A guy like John Mcain is not even going to pretend to play the "change game" with Obama, he is going to go after his experince. Furthermore the Republicans will very quickly and savegly de-bunk the agent of change message by bringing up Rezko, Michelle Obama's $300,000 + /year salary as a VP of a "not-for-profit" hospital, or the "Wal-Mart" ties. Then there is the admitted teenage drug use. Let's not forget the Madrasa and the pledge flap. We can't forget the race part either, just ask John Mcain what his party is capable of. Let's face it the Clintons are proof that Republicans are not above making stuff up, they will have no problem using some of these things against Obama. Rezko and the hospital stuff is unsettling, the rest is BS, but these are the swiftboat people after all.

Posted by: Datt420 | Jan 10, 2008 9:32:51 AM

You can only say that Bill Clinton is mischaracterizing a statement if it depends on what the meaning of "is" is...

Posted by: Sean O'Brien | Jan 10, 2008 9:35:05 AM

I thought Hillary was running not Bill. Michelle Obama says things about the other canidates and Elizabeth Edwards does also, are we now going to attack the mates of the canidates and what happened to a campaign of hope? Is it wise to go after the only living democrat president who served 2 terms, Bill still has a lot of connections overseas, I would think twice about this.

Posted by: Kardasia_Prime | Jan 10, 2008 11:59:38 AM

UGOCHUKWU - Thanks, if you can get through that it was VERY informative. I'm trying to get everything "factual" that I can, to make a right decision in the voters booth.

Posted by: zuzu | Jan 10, 2008 3:02:40 PM

Why don't you think of
how your life will change for the better
if Hillary wins.I watched this morning
how economics are predicting a recession
,the world is very complex at this
moment,China is emerging as strong economic power,they are slowly taking over the continent of Africa,South
America and you are only worried about
the personal life of Bill and Hillary.
When was the last time that we had a
surplus and under what president? If it
takes Hillary to bring things back for
the better I am for it.Obama right now
does not have the experience to be the
leader of the strongest country in the
eorld,which is the United States.There
is too much pressure in this Job folks,
this not an audition for cheer leading,
acting,or popularity contest.Make sure
that you listen deeply to the issues and
who will be ready to get the job done
from the moment that they are sworn in.
I am a man and I think that it is time
for a woman president in this country.
Countries like India under Indra Ghandi
Britain under Thatcher,Israel Goldermier
Pakistan Butho,Germany,Liberia and the
list goes on.They are women and they did
good a job as leaders of their respective countries.What are we afraid
of if we have not tried.SO AMERICA WAKE
UP.WE ARE BEHIND IN THIS DEPARTMENT.
VOTE FOR HILLARY TRUST ME SHE WILL MAKE
A GREAT PRESIDENT.

Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | Jan 10, 2008 5:49:42 PM

President Carter might not have been the best President but he was and more than likely be the best person that was ever put into office. Bill Clinton was a great President. Some people didn't like the way he did things but it got results. Kennedy wasn't in office long enough to find out what he could truly do. Other than those named above, men have screwed up this country enough! It's time for a woman to put things back in order!

Posted by: Momzilla1963 | Jan 10, 2008 7:57:48 PM

It's ironic that people think Hillary Clinton, the most *hated* woman by conservative Republicans, is more electable than Barack Obama. Let's not forget that she's on the list that includes Ted Kennedy for most liberal people in the minds of most conservatives, and she did tell us it takes a village to raise a child. She has a lot of experience, true, which will make her an even more divisive candidate if she gets the nomination because a lot of people just plain don't like Hillary Clinton.

If it were a contest on pure electibility in November, chances are that John Edwards would be the best candidate because he's a rich, young, charismatic white guy, which is what this country is used to as President. Although I like McCain, reality check says he's probably not going to get this nomination. He won in NH from Independent votes (which were the votes Obama needed to overcome the 2%, and he had in Iowa), because NH loves John McCain. But most Neo Cons don't like him as the poster boy for their party, and the better bets are Huckabee and Romney.

Theoretically no matter what the Dems should be able to steamroll in November, but reality doesn't always work that way. But make no mistake, when it comes to polarizing the electorate, Hillary Clinton is about the most polar force (unless Kennedy did run) that the Dems can muster, so any indications that anyone else would be more polarizing are sorely mistaken.

Posted by: MooMoo | Jan 11, 2008 5:00:30 AM

Obama could not change the life of his 83 year old grandmother
who ploughs, sows and harvest the corn, with her own hands -- at 83!

See how his uncle Obama struggles in Kenya.
Four years as governor and now a Senator, with 140,000 plus dollars guaranteed
he could have built a decent home for them in Kenya, if he was embarassed to have them in United States.

Is that his character?

Posted by: Harbans | Jan 11, 2008 10:00:04 AM

Post a comment